Thursday, October 18, 2007

No. But they are realizing that achieving energy independence and fighting climate change both have common solutions. Over at Townhall conservative columnist Cal Thompson comes aroundto a point I made over a year ago about the debate on climate change (although he first does some Gore bashing and accuses those that believe in global warming of being a cult first)

"Republicans and Democrats repeatedly tell us we rely too much on foreign oil, especially that which comes from a current trouble spot, the Middle East, and that which comes from a potential trouble spot, Venezuela. Might it be possible for the CGW crowd and the Church of Free Enterprise (CFE) to come together for the common purpose of reducing our reliance on foreign oil? CGW fundamentalists would get what they want — a reduced carbon footprint and supposedly lower global temperatures (go ahead and let them believe it) — while CFE parishioners would rejoice that Saudi Arabia’s hold on us (not to mention its use of our money to underwrite terrorism) could be broken.

If we would launch an energy independence program with the intensity of a Marshall Plan for Europe, or a man-on-the-moon project, to liberate ourselves from the petroleum despots by developing synthetic fuels and finding new energy sources closer to home — especially nuclear power — we could strike a blow against the Islamofascists more damaging than bombs and bullets."

I'm glad he's finally gotten past his partisan myopia on this topic and started to see the forest rather than the trees. However Mr. Thompson's call for "an energy independence program with the intensity of a ... man-on-the-moon project" went out years ago and was in part answered by Republicans for Environmental Protection (and other groups) when The Apollo Alliance was formed. Unfortunately he missed it because at the time as he (and many others) were too busy painting anyone concerned about global warming as a liberal flake. The result being that we are years behind where we could and should be in regards to energy independence and the Dems picked up the hybrid energy independence/global warming ball and ran with it which contributed to their ability to oust the GOP majority.

My point is that too many pundits, commentators, columnists, and bloggers are discounting the message due to the political affiliations of its messenger to the detriment of the greater good (and their political party). If the drivers of public opinion spent half as much time considering the possible merits of their opponents ideas as they do attacking the messenger we'd be in much better shape as a nation and much farther down the path to energy independence than we are. And maybe if Mr. Thompson can realize different problems sometimes have the exact same solutions and that a concerted bipartisan effort is needed for the greater good others can too.